# First comes ban, then comes taxes...



## CigarRob (Mar 3, 2007)

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07163/793348-85.stm

Statewide ban on smoking advances

Pa. Senate panel clears bill, but challenges loom in floor debate

Tuesday, June 12, 2007

By Tom Barnes, Post-Gazette Harrisburg Bureau

HARRISBURG -- A Republican state senator won a significant victory yesterday in his battle for "clean indoor air" in all workplaces in Pennsylvania, but conceded he still has a difficult fight against special interests such as the tobacco, casino and tavern industries.

Sen. Stewart Greenleaf, R-Montgomery, praised the Appropriations Committee for unanimously approving Senate Bill 246, which would ban smoking in all workplaces, including bars, restaurants and slots parlors, where many customers like to smoke.

He said he is hoping the full Senate will approve the bill -- without amending it to insert exceptions where smoking would be allowed -- by the time the Legislature recesses for the summer June 30. He said he knows that some of his colleagues still may offer amendments to water down the bill.

"It's not over yet," he said. "We are taking this step by step."

He said he'll urge the full Senate "to support this bill without amendments. It's important for us to maintain the health and welfare of our constituents. [Tobacco smoke] is a deadly substance, a known carcinogen. That's what we're dealing with."

Mr. Greenleaf has been fighting for smoke-free workplaces for 10 years. Getting a full Senate vote on the issue is the most progress he has made so far.

"I am concerned about broad amendments that would basically gut the bill," he said. "There are three important lobbying groups [against the bill] -- the tobacco industry, casinos and bars."

One amendment that might be offered on the Senate floor would permit smoking on certain floors of a casino as long as it has some designated nonsmoking areas. The casino also must have a ventilation system that uses 100 percent outside air, with a minimum of five air cycles per hour.

Other potential amendments would allow smoking in:

"Small drinking establishments," meaning a bar or tavern with no more than 50 seats and where food revenue is no more than 30 percent of gross sales.

"Cigar bars," stores where cigars are sold that include a place for smokers to sit, talk and watch TV while they puff away.

A fund-raising event held by a nonprofit group once a year to raise money for a charity. The event would have to provide food and drink and not allow minors to attend.

Private social clubs.

Patient's room at a long-term personal care facility or nursing home.

Day treatment or behavior health clinics.

Those possible changes mirror elements either in the Philadelphia ban or Allegheny County's law that was tossed out by the court.

Philadelphia has an exception for bars that get 30 percent or less of their revenue from food sales.

The Allegheny County ordinance would have allowed smoking at cigar bars and at volunteer-staffed fund-raisers for charitable organizations as long as no minors were present.

Private clubs and patients' rooms at long-term care facilities, nursing homes and day treatment centers were to be smoke-free under the local ban. Casinos also would have been smoke-free.

Sen. John Pippy, R-Moon, said he could support two exceptions in the Greenleaf bill -- at cigar bars and at charity fund-raisers, such as "cigar casino nights," which he said are held in Allegheny County to raise funds for parochial schools.

Bill Godshall, executive director of SmokeFree Pennsylvania, said he opposes weakening the bill by adding exceptions. But even more important, he said, is that "local governments should be allowed to enact ordinances that are more protective of public health than whatever the state passes."

In other words, he said, the state law should not pre-empt cities, counties and towns from enacting their own tougher anti-smoking laws. If the state law were to permit smoking at casinos, he said, Allegheny, Philadelphia or another county should be permitted to ban smoking in workplaces, including at any casinos in that county.

The bill approved yesterday doesn't pre-empt local action on smoking bans.

"The state law [on smoking bans] should be the floor on public health issues, not the ceiling," he said.

(Staff writer Anita Srikameswaran contributed. Bureau Chief Tom Barnes can be reached at [email protected] or 1-717-787-4254. )

Copyright © PG Publishing Co., Inc. All Rights Reserved.


----------



## kass (May 16, 2007)

The one thing I completely don't understand is why they feel the need to ban smoking in a cigar bar?!


----------



## mrgatorman (Mar 23, 2007)

Because they care about your health. They feel if you dont care...well...then they have to . Its a burden they're willing to take. How sweet........I love it when people know me better than me. Its a beautiful thing. Well its a good thing their in government.


----------



## ldostlund (Apr 19, 2007)

One word........blah


----------



## sonick-cl (Jun 5, 2007)

sigh. 

armed revolt is starting to sound better and better......


----------



## Shelby07 (May 1, 2007)

The truth of the matter is, there is no guarantee that smoking is going to harm me, or not smoking is going to keep me healthy. We are talking risk, not an absolute outcome. If I smoke a cigar every few days the risk is minimal. The gov't isn't really preventing anything from happening, they are decreasing the chances that something MIGHT happen. And, by the way, non-smokers are dying every day from the same afflictions.

Using the identcal logic...

People fall and hurt themselves all the time just walking around. The risk of hurting yourself while climbing a mountain and the danger that someone puts their rescuers in when they hurt or kill themselves increases dramatically. Most smokers don't climb mountains (or, for that matter, put themselves in high risk situations associated with a specific life style that we don't live) so they are actually decreasing the chance that they MIGHT fall off a mountain and die, and they don't put others in jeapordy by forcing them to traverse dangerous terrain in order to recover their bodies.

I think we need to outlaw mountain climbing. The risk is just too damn high!


----------



## jcruz1027 (Apr 10, 2006)

This was an e-mail I sent to my State House representative when the smoking ban was passed here in MD. Saqib is also a good friend of mine who I supported even though he voted in favor of the smoking ban (each candidate was in favor of it so it was supporting the lesser of two evils). Also I can't take credit for all the wording since I stole some of it from a news article somewhere:

Saqib –

I'm weighing in on the smoking ban that was passed and signed into law and takes affect next year. While what is done is done, I'm better late than never so this is how I feel:

The Maryland General Assembly passed legislation to ban smoking in all bars and restaurants. These laws ended the nuisance and clothes-fouling stench of tobacco smoke in public places and will probably reduce the health risks of secondhand smoke. 

And yet, the State was wrong to pass them. 

Proponents justify a ban by arguing that secondhand smoke is a health risk. But all sorts of human activities are risky - from contact sports to rock climbing, from skiing to swimming, from riding a bike to having sex. Yet many people swim, bike and play football because they take pleasure in doing so, and that's their choice. In a liberal society, people are free to make their own risk and lifestyle choices - including whether to smoke. 

Ban supporters respond that smokers inflict harm on other people, including bar and restaurant employees and other patrons. But again, all sorts of activities impose risks on others, and again, those people bear those risks willingly. Rock climbers endanger rescue workers, pool owners endanger lifeguards and patrons, fishing boat captains endanger their crews, and so on. We grant people the choice to be rangers or lifeguards or commercial fishermen. Why shouldn't we allow people to choose to patronize or work in smoking bars and restaurants? 

Ban supporters may dispute this, arguing that our society has health and safety regulations to protect people from risk. Smoking bans, they say, are no different than those regulations. But their reasoning is wrong. Most health and safety regulations are justified because they protect people from hidden risks. For instance, government inspects restaurant kitchens because patrons can't. Bars where smoking is permitted are hardly hidden risks. 

In fairness, some safety regulations do involve recognized risks, but few of them are outright bans. Coal mining, farming and commercial fishing are all extremely risky jobs and heavily regulated, yet there is no push to ban them. We respect the entrepreneurs' choice to own these businesses and the workers' choice to operate them. If smokers want to smoke in a bar, and an entrepreneur wants to provide that bar, and workers are willing to work there, why shouldn't we accept their choices? 

Liberal societies have market economies in part because the pursuit of profit and the threat of competition force the marketplace to provide choices for people with many different preferences. This should include the choice of smoking-allowed and smoke-free bars and restaurants. 

The General Assembly could’ve nurtured that choice by requiring all bars and restaurants to determine their own smoking policies. Smoking-allowed establishments can then choose whether to be all-smoking or to have separate smoking and nonsmoking sections. To help consumers identify which establishments cater to their preferences, bars and restaurants could be required to post their smoking policies at their entrances like they do with their liquor licenses or health inspections notices, and they could be penalized for violating them. 

A law like that would’ve allowed smokers and nonsmokers to enjoy the environments they choose. If most customers prefer a nonsmoking environment, many bars and restaurants will follow the money and prohibit smoking. But other establishments will cater to smokers and allow tobacco use. 

Free societies allow people to make decisions that others don't like. That includes allowing smokers to have bars and restaurants to cater to their preferences, just as nonsmokers should have establishments that cater to theirs. Annapolis should’ve stood by the ideals of a free society instead of opting to force smokers to live by the preferences of nonsmokers.


----------



## ldostlund (Apr 19, 2007)

Can politicians read that much? That is alot.


----------



## Dogwatch Dale-cl (Sep 7, 2005)

Outstanding letter Jerry! If every cigar smoker in the country would write something along those lines to their representatives, far fewer smoking bans would get passed. Freedom is not free - it is OUR responsibility to be vigilant and vocal in letting our government know that we understand our rights and will not silently sit by while they get eroded away.

Well done!


----------



## CigarRob (Mar 3, 2007)

Nice piece, Jer!

I also often wonder if the politicos ever read them through...or if they can read at all.


----------



## bobbyg29-cl (Apr 21, 2007)

Great letters Rob and Jerry! Very well thought-out and logical arguments.


----------



## silentjon (Apr 19, 2007)

bobbyg29 said:


> Great letters Rob and Jerry! Very well thought-out and logical arguments.


I don't think you win over any politician with logic.


----------



## Craig (Jun 10, 2007)

silentjon said:


> I don't think you win over any politician with logic.


Exactly... Perhaps enclose a nice campaign contribution with the letter. Then, it might get read.


----------

